July 2012

On Thursday, August 2, 2012, at 3:30 p.m., as part of the ABA Annual Meeting, the ABA and the State & Local Government Law Section is sponsoring a free screening of “ Crime After Crime,” the award-winning documentary from director Yoav Potash chronicling two San Francisco Bay Area land use lawyers who volunteer to provide their services to try and help free a woman who has been imprisoned for 20 years. We saw the film last year, and loved it. It was one of the best we have seen in a while:

“Crime” and “land use lawyers” are phrases not usually heard together; in most cases, the worlds of criminal law and land use never intersect, and lawyers for developers and property owners don’t have much occasion to visit the “Attorney’s Room” at the state pen. But in the documentary film Crime After Crime, two land use lawyers including our State and Local Government Law Section colleague Nadia Costa (Vice-Chair of the Section’s Land Use Committee), plunge into that unfamiliar milieu.

In 1983, Deborah Peagler, a woman brutally abused by her boyfriend, was sentenced to 25 years-to-life for her connection to his murder. Twenty years later, as she languished in prison, a California law allowing incarcerated domestic-violence survivors to reopen their cases was passed. Enter a pair of rookie land-use attorneys convinced that with the incontrovertible evidence that existed, they could free Deborah in a matter of months.

More details on the case here. Read my complete review here. Here are the details of the screening:

Location: DePaul University College of Law, 25 E. Jackson Blvd, Chicago, Room 241.

Cost: Free.

CLE Credits: Following the screening, we will be presenting a CLE on “The Cost of Wrongful Convictions” featuring Director Potash, Nadia Costa (one of the lawyers featured in “Crime After Crime”), Craig Watkins (District Attorney, Dallas), and Emily Miller (Better Government Association, Chicago). The panel will be moderated by our SLG Section colleague Donna Frazier.

Hope you can join us if you are attending the Annual Meeting, or are just in Chicago.
Continue Reading ABA Annual Meeting, Chicago: Free Screening Of “Crime After Crime”

In a case that was probably doomed from the start because of an earlier precedential ruling, the Federal Circuit concluded that the government’s temporary seizure of the plaintiff’s computer “for review” at a border stop and the subsequent destruction of the computer hard drive and resulting loss of data was not a taking because the seizure was an exercise of the government’s power to control the border.

We’ve been down the road of Kam-Almaz v. United States, No. 2011-5059 (June 30, 2012) before, in AmeriSource, for example, where the government seized the plaintiff’s property as evidence in order to prosecute a third party, and by the time the government returned the property to its owner, it was worthless. In Kam-Almaz, the ICE agents took the laptop because Kam-Almaz was a “person of interest,” promising to return it shortly. However, during the time ICE had it, the…

Continue Reading Federal Circuit: Taking As A Result Of Police Power Isn’t A Taking

Check out the latest brief filed in the Federal Circuit by our colleague Thor Hearne. Readers know Thor as our semi-regular updater of the latest from the Court of Federal Claims in “rails-to-trails” takings cases, and this appeal is from a CFC case on that subject.

In Ladd v. United States, the CFC dismissed the property owners’ Fifth Amendment takings claim stemming from a rail conversion in Arizona. The court held that the claim was filed past the six-year Tucker Act statute of limitations. A Trails Act case begins when the Surface Transportation Board issues an order (a NITU) that converts an otherwise abandoned railroad easement into a new federal rail-trail easement. The new easement can be used by the public for recreation and the STB retains jurisdiction to “railbank” the corridor, potentially allowing some railroad in the future to build a new railway line across the land. …

Continue Reading Can The Statute Of Limitations In Tucker Act Start Running Before The Govt Provides Actual Notice Of The Taking?

Update: More here.

—————————

Today, I have the great pleasure of welcoming Dwight H. Merriam, a partner with the Robinson & Cole firm, as the Connecticut member of Owners’ Counsel of America. OCA is the nationwide network of the most experienced eminent domain and property rights lawyers who, as noted in a recent brief, “seek to advance, preserve and defend the rights of private property owners and thereby further the cause of liberty, because the right to own and use property is ‘the guardian of every other right‘ and the basis of a free society.” OCA has one member per state.

Readers of this blog should know Dwight well. He frequently forwards items of interest to post, was a co-author of a recent brief in the New York rent control case, has authored chapters in the seminal eminent domain treatise Nichols on …

Continue Reading Welcome To Dwight Merriam, New Owners’ Counsel Of America Member

Update: thanks to Gideon Kanner for noting that our original read of the Georgia statute was off the mark. It did not forbid the carrying of firearms in churches, but required them to inform security guard that they were carrying, and important distinction. The post has been revised to reflect that.

————————————-

We’ve never waded into the Second Amendment debate on this blog, preferring to focus on the Fifth Amendment and related topics. Well, here’s an opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit where the two issues cross over.

The issue in Georgiacarry.org, Inc. v. Georgia, No. 11-10387 (11th Cir. July 20, 2012) was whether Georgia’s “Carry Law,” which requires those carrying firearms in certain areas including churches to inform security personnel, violated the First and Second Amendment rights of those who would prefer to carry firearms in churches and not tell anyone. The district…

Continue Reading Some Fifth Amendment Property Lessons From A Second Amendment Opinion

For those who listened in to the just-concluded “Recent Developments in Eminent Domain” teleconference, thank you. Here are the links to the cases and briefs that we discussed that were not included in your written materials. Also, click on the link above to order the audio CD of the program if you missed out.

  • Are interlocutory public use determinations immediately appealable? Some courts say no. Others say yes. 
  • More on the California Supreme Court’s opinion validating the legislature’s elimination of redevelopment agencies. Follow the issue at the California Eminent Domain Report. 

Continue Reading Links From Today’s Eminent Domain Teleconference

Mark your calendars for next Tuesday, July 17, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern (noon CT, 11:00 a.m. MT, 10:00 a.m. PT, 7:00 a.m. Hawaii Time) for “Recent Developments in Eminent Domain,” a live audio program sponsored by Lorman Education.

It’s a 1.5 hour teleconference discussing some of the more important recent court decisions about our favorite topics, eminent domain, inverse condemnation, and regulatory takings.

I’m the sole faculty member, so you get to hear me chatter for about an hour and fifteen minutes, and we’ll save 15 minutes or so for questions. I’ll be covering the latest in public use, just compensation, and related topics. Here is the registration and CLE credit information. Hope you can join us. Continue Reading Upcoming Teleconference: Recent Developments In Eminent Domain